And It’s Been A Lo-o-o-o-ng Time Coming
In just a few hours (or less), as I write this, jury selection will begin for the trial of Barry Bonds. Bonds, former slugger for the San Francisco Giants and current holder of the record for number of home runs hit in a career, is accused of lying to a grand jury investigating the Balco scandal in 2003.
Juliet Macur, of The New York Times, penned a couple of articles about the Bonds case in the past week. This article, published yesterday on the web, offers this insight:
“It is a very important case because [the government has] had the whole nation watching and they’ve invested so much into it,” said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who is a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “They want to send a message that even Barry Bonds has to tell the truth to a grand jury, but it’s more than that. The only reason they cared that he lied is that they care about steroid use among professional athletes.”
Hard to say which way Bonds’ case will swing (could he really have been so stupid as to think that the “flaxseed oil” was not something else?), but I have to believe that there are some lawyers for a certain former professional cyclist who resides in Austin, Texas (and Aspen, Colorado) who will be following the case very closely.
Ask Marion Jones and a few others. The price for lying the to Feds can be pretty high.
Does Patrik Have That Sinking Feeling, Perhaps?
A while back, Ricardo Ricco’s name popped up again. Now comes Patrik Sinkiwitz who may have tested postive for the use of human growth hormone, after having previously served a suspension for having used testosterone. According to CyclingNews.com:
“I can only say that I have have definitely not used any banned substances,” Sinkewitz told the Süddeutsche Zeitung. “At first I thought it was a joke, but then I was given the news in writing.”
The 30-year-old said that he would ask to have his B-sample tested.
Sinkewitz was tested on February 27th at the GP Lugano. According to this CyclingNews.com article published a few days ago:
The German is the first cyclist to be suspended after providing a blood sample positive for HGH. UCI press officer Enrico Carpani explained that the validated test for human growth hormone had not been publicised as the UCI wanted to retain an element of surprise in its testing.
“The UCI has always said human growth hormones were being tested but we didn’t want to officially announce the date of scientific validation of the test in order to allow an element of surprise,” Carpani said. “Without making a pronouncement about Patrik Sinkewitz’s case, who still can ask for a B sample analysis, we can say that the validation of the human growth hormone test is a major new step in the fight against doping.”
Keeping the news quiet that a test for HGH had been validated certainly gave the testers the element of surprise. And seeing as Sinkewitz is the first cyclist to be accused of doping with HGH based on this new test, one could expect that the cyclist might try to question the validity of the test. Given how the anti-doping code works, however, it doesn’t really matter whether the test is valid or not. The science behind the test is “deemed” to be correct. Should Sinkewitz’s B sample confirm the initial result, his professional cycling career is pretty much over.
Having served a two-year suspension for using testosterone, this finding could lead to a lifetime ban. You have to wonder about someone who’s already served a suspension and come back to competition. Why jeopardize the rest of one’s career a second time? Especially given that a second offense pretty much assures you’re out of the game?
If he did what it his newest A sample results suggest, then clearly Sinkewitz is no genius. If the B sample comes back positive, Mr. Sinkewitz, take a lesson from a previous cyclist’s experience. Save your money and make as graceful an exit from the sport as you can. And hope you can find employment elsewhere.
Athletes who cheat make a choice between a better performance and the economic benefits thereof, and the risk of being caught and subsequent punishment. There is a widely held perception that pro cyclists almost universally use PEDs. Whether or not thatbis true matters little in this context. Also, only a small number of drug users are caught. The odds are pretty good overall that you can dope and get away with it, at least for several years. In those several years, a reasonably competent cyclist can make some pretty good money. My impression is that pro cyclists tend to come from lower economic strata, where such money probably looks even better than it might to, say, a middle class junior here in the US looking a perhaps a pro career vs going to college and then into the work force. So there is a lot of incentive to dope and have perhaps a few years of a career with the attendant economic benefits rather than work a low paying job.
The fact that this is a form a gambling makes such behavior more likely. Gambling can be highly addictive in large part because even though games are by their vary nature stacked against you, you do get a payout on occasion, which only serves as a reinforcement. This is why slot machines and lotteries are set up to give small payouts regularly: it’s a hook to keep you playing even though in the long run you lose more than you win.
This also cam explain some of the behavior of WADA et al. They know they are only catching a fraction of those who dope, so they want to be sure to limit the ability of those caught, guilty or not, to get off.
I can’t discard the suspicion that this is belated revenge on the part of the UCI. We already know how capricious this organization can be to individuals who threaten them. And it’s hard to think of any one individual who has done more harm to cycling’s image and profitability than Sinkewitz. His fall from grace and subsequent full confession in 2007 led to the end of the D-land Tour as well as German media threatening to boycott the Tour. By speaking frankly about doping and the reasons behind it–Sinkewitz’s violation of omerta was just as serious as that of Kohl of Jaksche.
That’s not to say it would surprise me to learn Sinkewitz was/is using HGH–it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. But I suspect he was directly targeted.
I think Bonds said something like, “Trail, what trial?”
In other news, UCI appeals Contador to CAS
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-appeals-contador-decision-to-court-of-arbitration-for-sport
“Carpani indicated that the CAS is the most impartial and transparent authority and that he was confident that it would conduct a fair examination of the evidence.” That gave me quite a laugh and I’m left to wonder what color the sky is in Carpani’s world???
I suspect the original decision for Contador contained a large dose of home cooking. Now he has to play on the road, so to speak, and the results might be quite different.
Zirbel reduced sentence. This quote says it all:
“I have been allowed to race the rest of the 2011 season and beyond, though I do not currently belong to a team,” said Zirbel. “Well, my ‘substantial assistance’ amounted to me putting USADA in touch with a person who had incriminating knowledge about an athlete who USADA was building a case against. And I actually did this in two separate cases that USADA was or is pursuing.”
AC,
Interesting quote from Zirbel. I saw a few snippets about the story earlier today. I’ll probably get to writing about it in a day or so.
William,
Good points in the first comment. I can well imagine a pro thinking, “What’s the chances of getting caught … again?” And when you take into account the economic motive (as I believe Bonnie Ford pointed out in a story a while back), it shouldn’t really be a surprise that guys like Sinkewitz dope.
Regarding Contador, I suspect you’re right. And Alberto will definitely have to prove himself on the road. (Sounds like he’s already doing so. What happens if the other side wins and he is suspended for a couple of years? Enquiring minds and all…)
ludwig,
I wouldn’t be surprised if the UCI and WADA target those like Sinkewitz, who have already served out a suspension. If for no other reason than to make sure those athletes are back on the straight and narrow (though the cynic in me wonders whether they might also be looking for some sort of additional retribution).
Jeff,
Hmm. Surprise, surprise. I kind of suspected they would appeal. That quote is priceless.
The truly bizarre thing about the UCI announcement is their resolute refusal to take a position on the case. By rule the UCI was not even supposed to refer the Contador case to the RFEC unless the UCI had concluded that a doping violation took place.
Now the UCI has decided to appeal the RFEC decision, not because they have determined that the RFEC was wrong, but because they are looking for a more authoritative decision that everyone can respect. Problem is, the CAS is not an independent investigative body, they are a dispute-resolving body. Contador and the RFEC says that there’s no doping violation here. UCI does not say anything one way or the other. Where’s the dispute?
Larry,
Feats the buck out of me. 😉
Interesting read on the German journalist that broke the Contador story:
Hajo Seppelt Interview: Lingering questions about the Contador positive
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7930/Hajo-Seppelt-Interview-Lingering-questions-about-the-Contador-positive.aspx
MikeG
On the LA case, I found this article very interesting:
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame
Especially the following section, when you consider that there is a separate article that mentions LA granted an interview as long as they did not ask specifically about PEDs, but just Livestrong – makes me think LA might have indicated to Strickland he did take PEDs, or at least Strickland thought that’s what LA meant:
I don’t know how you’ll feel. I don’t know, if you’re not already there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It wasn’t Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from one of Armstrong’s opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any clemency by affirming it under oath.
It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning. The moment I received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended.
Larry,
I believe McQaid is quoted as conceding that Contador has a “strong” case, but the UCI states that they felt compelled to appeal to CAS because of the appearance of political interference by the Spanish Prime Minister. This was what I also pointed out.
But lest we think that UCI will just go through the motions, the cavalry rides in. WADA has announced that they will appeal separately.
MikeG,
Another interesting article.
Of course Lance doped. Of course Barry Bonds took steroids.
The difference for me is that Bonds was my homie, and Lance appeared just to be an arrogant douche bag.
Some more “filling in of the gaps” from Bill Strickland @ Bicycling: In the article, Strickland described his previous attitude toward the doping allegations as “agnostic.” The article leaves the impression that a human source convinced Strickland, which Strickland confirmed in an interview this morning, though he declined to provide details.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksandprofits/2011/03/bicycling_magazine_editor_pete.html